<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mantis version="1.2.8" urlbase="https://taste.tuxfamily.org/mantis/" issuelink="#" notelink="~" format="1">
    <issue>
        <id>764</id>
        <project id="1">Taste</project>
        <reporter id="32">shd01</reporter>
        <handler id="3">maxime</handler>
        <priority id="40">high</priority>
        <severity id="60">major</severity>
        <reproducibility id="10">always</reproducibility>
        <status id="50">assigned</status>
        <resolution id="10">open</resolution>
        <projection id="10">none</projection>
        <category id="17">TASTE-IV/DV</category>
        <date_submitted>1524642113</date_submitted>
        <last_updated>1638439912</last_updated>
        <eta id="10">none</eta>
        <view_state id="10">public</view_state>
        <summary>Can't reuse functions due to namespace conflicts</summary>
        <due_date>1</due_date>
        <description>I created a container function, with some functions inside, to use as a generic block for a redundant subsystem.  When I import this block into a project for the second time, TASTE renames all the contained functions to default names (e.g. Function6).  &#13;
&#13;
This is tedious as I have to rename all the functions by hand to something unique, and then create new behavioural code.  I can't have a single source for the implementation.  &#13;
&#13;
What I would really like is a clean facility to be able to reuse or duplicate modules, perhaps by creating libraries.&#13;
&#13;
For the time being, I could get by with a hierarchical namespace, i.e. where names are only required to be unique within a function.&#13;
&#13;
I've made this a major severity report as I think it is an impediment to serious use of TASTE in systems modelling.&#13;
&#13;
</description>
    </issue>
    <issue>
        <id>669</id>
        <project id="1">Taste</project>
        <reporter id="3">maxime</reporter>
        <handler id="20">gmamais</handler>
        <priority id="30">normal</priority>
        <severity id="10">feature</severity>
        <reproducibility id="70">have not tried</reproducibility>
        <status id="50">assigned</status>
        <resolution id="10">open</resolution>
        <projection id="10">none</projection>
        <category id="23">ASN.1 Compiler v4</category>
        <date_submitted>1504172221</date_submitted>
        <last_updated>1531224564</last_updated>
        <eta id="10">none</eta>
        <view_state id="10">public</view_state>
        <summary>Improvements of asn1scc (WUT)</summary>
        <due_date>1</due_date>
        <description>In order to iterate on this - and define priorities, I summarize here the list of issues reported by WUT:&#13;
&#13;
1.  Missing/Incomplete documentation (we have no real end-user documentation of the compiler (apart from the ACN part).)&#13;
2.  Management of errors :&#13;
* [*DONE*] Lack of automatic constraints check in Decode functions (Add call to isConstraintValid after decoding)&#13;
* Usage of assert in asn1scc generated functions&#13;
* [*DONE*] Returning of unnamed / undefined error codes&#13;
&#13;
3.   Misleading initialisation of a kind attribute for ASN.1 CHOICE construction (Some confusion with the NONE choice)&#13;
&#13;
4.   Bitstream structure issues (arious issues, such as the meaning of the &quot;count&quot; field which is different for encoding and decoding)&#13;
&#13;
5.   Not sufficient model consistency checks&#13;
&#13;
6.   Ambiguity in the definition of the required buffer sizes for encoding (&quot;+1 for zero-sized type&quot; is not documented)&#13;
&#13;
7.   Quality of the asn1scc-generated test suite&#13;
&#13;
&#13;
</description>
    </issue>
    <issue>
        <id>411</id>
        <project id="1">Taste</project>
        <reporter id="4">ttsiodras</reporter>
        <handler id="20">gmamais</handler>
        <priority id="30">normal</priority>
        <severity id="10">feature</severity>
        <reproducibility id="100">N/A</reproducibility>
        <status id="20">feedback</status>
        <resolution id="30">reopened</resolution>
        <projection id="10">none</projection>
        <category id="12">ASN.1 Compiler</category>
        <date_submitted>1422264667</date_submitted>
        <last_updated>1530779748</last_updated>
        <eta id="10">none</eta>
        <view_state id="10">public</view_state>
        <summary>Improve rename policy for enumerants</summary>
        <due_date>1</due_date>
        <description>Improve the so-called “rename policy” for enumerants of CHOICE / ENUMERATED types – thus providing consistency between C/Ada.</description>
    </issue>
    <issue>
        <id>699</id>
        <project id="1">Taste</project>
        <reporter id="45">miguel_munoz</reporter>
        <handler id="3">maxime</handler>
        <priority id="30">normal</priority>
        <severity id="50">minor</severity>
        <reproducibility id="70">have not tried</reproducibility>
        <status id="50">assigned</status>
        <resolution id="10">open</resolution>
        <projection id="10">none</projection>
        <category id="1">General</category>
        <date_submitted>1509026956</date_submitted>
        <last_updated>1516722115</last_updated>
        <eta id="10">none</eta>
        <platform>All</platform>
        <view_state id="10">public</view_state>
        <summary>Native encoding not checked between nodes of different architecture</summary>
        <due_date>1</due_date>
        <description>The editors and code generation allow that an interface with parameters set to native encoding is deployed between nodes that have a different architecture (e.g. x86 and leon). &#13;
&#13;
The information contained in the models should be sufficient to detect this condition, and report an error. Otherwise, at runtime, this will produce garbage data or possibly a crash.</description>
    </issue>
    <issue>
        <id>82</id>
        <project id="1">Taste</project>
        <reporter id="3">maxime</reporter>
        <priority id="30">normal</priority>
        <severity id="10">feature</severity>
        <reproducibility id="100">N/A</reproducibility>
        <status id="10">new</status>
        <resolution id="10">open</resolution>
        <projection id="10">none</projection>
        <category id="8">PolyORB-HI-All</category>
        <date_submitted>1294829115</date_submitted>
        <last_updated>1297107122</last_updated>
        <eta id="10">none</eta>
        <view_state id="10">public</view_state>
        <summary>Add runtime configuration for communication drivers</summary>
        <due_date>1</due_date>
        <description>Add a mean to configure network configuration from the user code. For &#13;
example, the IP address and port number could be determined dynamically &#13;
rather than being fixed in the AADL code.&#13;
&#13;
Expected benefit: allow users to build native client-server applications &#13;
with minimal effort&#13;
&#13;
Specifying the possibility for a driver to be reconfigured at runtime should be a feature of the ASN.1 model of the driver configuration.&#13;
&#13;
Eg.&#13;
&#13;
Available-devices ::= ENUMERATED { eth0, eth1 }&#13;
&#13;
Ethernet ::= SEQUENCE {&#13;
   default-device  Available-devices,&#13;
   port            INTEGER   (0..65535),&#13;
   ip              IA5String (SIZE (3..11)),&#13;
   reconfigurable  BOOLEAN&#13;
}&#13;
&#13;
Then when the user sets the Ethernet values in the Deployment view he would write:&#13;
&#13;
{ default-device eth0, port 80, ip &quot;192.168.1.1&quot;, reconfigurable true }&#13;
&#13;
In addition to Send and Receive, the driver should in turn contain some form of reconfiguration API, of course.&#13;
</description>
    </issue>
</mantis>
